Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Casting a Worldwide Net: How Litigation Funders Can Leverage Europe’s New Unified Patent Court

By John Freund |

The following article was contributed by Lionel Martin (Partner, August Debouzy), Pierre-Olivier Ally (Counsel, August Debouzy), Ben Quarmby (Partner, MoloLamken LLP) and Jonathan E. Barbee (Counsel, MoloLamken LLP). 

Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is on the cusp of launch, confirmed for this June 1, 2023.  It has been eagerly anticipated by the patent litigation community across the member states—starting with 17 European countries, but expected to extend rapidly to all of Europe minus Poland, Spain, Croatia, and, most notably, the UK.

The UPC has been long in the making: over ten years have passed since the agreement was first signed.  What is to be expected of this new court, and what opportunities does it present for litigation funders?

Uniformity and Scale.  The principal goal of the UPC is to offer a single, consistent, and coherent court system in Europe for the litigation of patents.  Historically, procedural differences in the member states’ national patent and court systems meant that the timeline of patent litigation could vary wildly from one jurisdiction to the next.  The jurisdictions also differed on substance: infringement, validity, and injunctive relief rulings were not consistently applied across the board.  And the one way in which the national jurisdictions were similar—comparatively low damages models—acted as further disincentive for patent owners looking to enforce their rights.

The UPC promises to overhaul that system entirely.  It is expected to issue speedy judgments on both infringement and validity.  It should set the scene for damages verdicts that are not only more consistent across jurisdictions, but also generally much greater in size—as one would expect for verdicts covering at least 17 member states.  And it promises greater accessibility and uniformity insofar as English will be the preeminent language of infringement proceedings in any matter involving allegations of infringement extending beyond a single member state.

The UPC must now live up to that promise, and there is some uncertainty as to how the system will play out in its early stages.  Will the court be able to keep up the expected pace?   What standards will the court rely on when imposing preliminary injunctions?  How will damages awards be limited or expanded?  How will the appellate process work?  How will early litigants help shape the law and jurisprudence of the UPC?

Those questions and many more will have to be answered in the coming months and years.  But if the UPC delivers on even part of its promised mandate, it may represent an exciting new arena for litigation funders working with patent owners to enforce their rights.  Indeed, there is reason to believe that the court will strive to be patentee-friendly—at least at the outset—in order to attract its “customers”.

Opportunities for Litigation Funding.  Many of the key features of the UPC as currently contemplated, align neatly with the incentives and priorities of litigation funders and patent owners.

  • Broader Geographic Reach. The UPC makes multi-jurisdictional patent campaigns cost-effective and efficient by allowing plaintiffs to target infringement across at least seventeen countries in one court proceeding.  Plaintiffs no longer need to pick and choose the countries in which to enforce their patents.  The reach of the UPC is likely to expand further: the UPC is expected to be integrated into European mutual recognition mechanisms that will allow the UPC’s jurisdiction to extend not only to the EU but also to Switzerland, Norway, and the UK.  While these mutual recognition mechanisms have long existed, national courts have historically been reluctant to rely on them.  The UPC, by contrast, is expected to do so much more regularly.
  • Reduced Transaction Costs. Reliance on a single proceeding across multiple countries will cut down on the costs of litigating in multiple European countries in parallel.  The UPC will therefore dramatically reduce the resources necessary to launch and maintain a multi-jurisdictional campaign in the EU.  The UPC will also cut down on the logistics and transactional costs associated with such campaigns.  A plaintiff, for example, no longer needs to hire three separate teams to enforce patents in, for instance, France, Germany, and Italy, and pay additional fees for those three teams to coordinate to ensure coherence across jurisdictions.
  • Short Time to Trial. UPC proceedings will expedite the pace of patent campaigns.  Some commentators suggest that proceedings will only take 12-15 months from complaint to final ruling—a significant boon for patent owners looking to promptly and efficiently enforce their rights.  If this holds true, and if sustainable, this pace would rival the speed of some of the fastest dockets among U.S. district courts.
  • Efficient Evidence Gathering Procedures. Unlike the U.S., there is no formal discovery in the UPC, which significantly reduces litigation costs and can expedite proceedings.  But the UPC offers several key features that will be of value to patent owners: (i) plaintiffs may move to seize evidence of infringement from a defendant’s premises, and (ii) they may obtain court orders to force defendants to produce documents.
  • Larger Damages Awards. Since UPC judgments will cover more countries and consumers, the potential damages awards should be considerably larger than they would be in a single jurisdiction.  This should help drive up the value of settlements, and put more pressure on defendants to settle earlier.  It also radically tips the scale on the economics of patent litigation funding in the EU.  Suddenly, the EU becomes an attractive venue in-and-of-itself for funders—not just an ancillary venue in support of higher-stakes U.S. litigation.
  • Broad Injunctive Relief. The UPC will allow patent holders to seek injunctive relief across multiple countries in one shot.  This too should help drive bigger and earlier settlements—a boon for funders looking for a rapid return on their investment. 
  • High-Quality Decisions. It is expected that the Court will render first-rate decisions for two principal reasons: (i) it has attracted seasoned IP judges from across Europe, and (ii) the judges consist of a mix of legally and technically qualified judges.  Furthermore, due to the high specialization of the Court, the number of judges will be quite limited (<100), which may help contribute to greater respect for precedent from fellow judges, which in turn leads to greater predictability for litigants.

Will the UPC be able to deliver on all of these fronts?  Only time will tell.  But for a savvy funder looking for an early mover advantage in a relatively underdeveloped market, and with the opportunity to potentially help shape early UPC jurisprudence in ways that will benefit patent owners for years to come, these are exciting times indeed . . . .

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

Key Highlights from the Inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition

By John Freund |

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Dangers of Retrospective Legislation in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The debate around whether the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill should be retrospective is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. A recent op-ed makes the case that retrospectivity poses significant dangers and unfairness.

Writing in LegalFutures, Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer of Winward UK, argues that the core issue is whether it is unfair to allow litigation funders to rely on contractual agreements that were freely entered into by both parties, even if those agreements were based on a mistake of law.

Marshall claims that the common law right to recover money paid under a mistake only applies when the mistake led to one party receiving an unintended benefit. In the case of litigation funding, the only benefit that has accrued is the one that was explicitly drafted into the contract. Allowing retrospectivity would open the door to satellite litigation and unreal counterfactuals, according to Marshall.

Claimants who have already received funding and won their cases are now arguing for the "right" to renegotiate and keep all the proceeds for themselves. But what about the funders' arguments that cases may have gone on longer or become more expensive than intended? Fairness demands that both sides' positions be considered.

Marshall insists that the true drawback in retrospectivity is the inherent danger of prejudicing one party to the exclusion of the other, or conferring an unexpected benefit to one party at the expense of the other. Ironically, this is precisely what those challenging the bill are attempting to do. So while the debate is a complex one, one can make a compelling case that retrospectivity in litigation funding poses significant dangers and unfairness.

ReplyForward
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April.

The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group.

The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’.

The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:

  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.

The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:

  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants

The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation.

In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year.

Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.

Read More